Re: Consonant Clusters at the End of Words Rob Zook Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:42:14 -0600 At 02:53 PM 11/12/97 -0600, you wrote: > >a palatal fricative. Also, since Vulcan doesn't otherwise have a dental >fricative, we'd probably end up with a phonetic realization of [ds] for >/dth/. Hmmm. Actually I was thinking of the opposite, a phonemic /dth/ but realized as the [dth] where the was the fricative. >>Unfortunately, this does not seem quite consisant either, because >>p -> f and k -> ch does not have the same relationship as t -> th. > >k -> x is the same relationship, though. As is p -> wh. Oh, wait. Do you >mean the aspirate or the fricative th? I mean the fricative. For example the IPA chart shows no dental stops, and t is a voiceless alveolar stop. So with t -> th not only does the amount of closure change as in p -> f, and k -> ch, but the point of articulation changes as well, because th as realized in English is a dental fricative not a alveolar fricative. >> appears in k'wawl, and in this case the aw could be some kind >>of vowel dipthong maybe /ao/? If not, perhaps you can have an >>[approximate]+[lateral] at the end of a word: yl wl. > >It winds up being much the same thing. I tend to restrict approximates to >occuring before vowels, but that's just me. Well, lets look at an English example, "bowl". In that case not only do you have a diphthong, but in the dialect I speak you have an ending [wl] sound. >>Or if /w/ >>does indeed represent a voiced bilabial fricative as Saul suggests >>it could mean you can have [fricative]+[labial] at the end of a >>word: fl vl sl zl cl jl xl hl. > >Or we could change _this_ w to u. But the clusters above would be OK as >well. We could expand it to fricative+approximant. French-flavored with >l, Russian-flavored with y. They wouldn't phonetically be clusters, >probably, but lateralized and palatalized consonants. Hmmm. Maybe you can explain the difference? >>Did I understand you aright Saul? In your last message you suggested >>/w/ was also a fricative. Since /wh/ is already the voiceless, that >>would seem to make /w/ voiced. Frankly, I'd rather see a voiced >>approximate with a voiceless allophone. > >Mm. The difference between a voiced approximate and a voiced fricative is >tiny. The only thing I'm trying to do here is secure an orderly role for >wh/w in the phonology. Even if /w/ is phonemically a fricative, it might >almost always be pronounced as an approximant. So you would say /wh/ and /w/ both fricatives with approximate allophones? >>khp khb kht khd khk khg khq >>th thb tht thd thk thg thq >>dh dhb dht dhd dhk dhg dhq >> >>I kind of like these simply because of their exoticness. That could >>give us words like qyoodhk or kakhg which look nice and tricky to >>pronounce ;-) > >That almost makes it look like h is a voiceless form of <'>. Similar. I think /h/ is a voiceless glottal fricative. -------------------------------------------------------- Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. -- Bertrand Russell